Site from brief (plan, build, review, rebuild)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step sequence, the conditional rebuild, and the approximate credits and time. It doesn't detail failure modes or side effects, but it covers the main behavioral characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then cost/time, then usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step loop, 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameters like 'language', doesn't clarify the 'import' step, and doesn't address potential errors or output. An agent would need more guidance to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (base and review have descriptions, brief and language do not). The description adds no parameter explanations, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The agent is left uncertain about the 'language' and 'brief' parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool performs the entire loop: plan, build, import, review, and potentially rebuild. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools by naming the full workflow and the condition for using them instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use the individual tools when the plan should be edited by hand first, implying this tool is for when no manual editing is needed. This gives a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use directive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.